I hate to waste time commenting on NYTimes and WashPost editorials because they’re so predictable, but these two sentences caught my eye:
NYTimes: “The president, who believes so strongly in states’ rights in other contexts, should let the states do their jobs and work out their marriage laws before resorting to a constitutional amendment.”
Washington Post: “A federal definition of marriage, which has been governed primarily by state law since the beginning, would prevent any state, whatever the views of its residents, from recognizing the equality and legitimacy of same-sex marriages.”
These two editorial boards think the gay marriage issue turns Bush into a federalism believer, and now all of a sudden these journalistic federalism peddlers are now states’ rights believers!
And they clearly believe the definition of marriage varies from state to state, and depends on the views of their residents.
